T

he public flagellation of the Democratic Party over allegations of massive corruption is likely to continue for some time in spite of desperate attempts by party leaders, including President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, who is the chief patron, to contain the damage by trying to confine the blame entirely on Nazaruddin, the party’s former treasurer and present fugitive.

The news media isn’t likely to drop this story from the headlines until Nazaruddin is arrested, investigated, tried and if found guilty, convicted. The public can look forward to more claims about the involvement of the Democrats’ top figures in the scams that he had been accused of.

Since he fled the law after being declared a suspect, he has given press interviews from undisclosed locations to lay accusations against his former party bosses and colleagues. He is certainly not going to go down alone.

While the media and pundits continue to pummel the party that won the most votes in the 2009 elections, surprisingly, few people are asking what should have been the most pertinent question in this mess, especially when it comes to the future of Indonesia’s democracy.

It is also the one question that had probably forced Nazaruddin to do what he allegedly has done in his capacity as party treasurer: How do you finance a modern political party to begin with?

Democrats’ rivals may take pleasure in seeing the party endure a severe beating three years before the next elections, but they are also very aware of the difficulties of running a party on shoestring budget.

Political parties in Indonesia are currently gathering their funding from three sources: Membership fees and contributions, individual and corporate donations and public funding.

The 2008 Law on Political Parties (amended in 2010) sets caps on individual and corporate donations and imposes tight financial reporting requirements.

The law requires parties to open their financial records for public scrutiny and specifically to have their management of public money audited by the Supreme Audit Agency.

At the national level, the parties represented in the House receive public funding in accordance to the size of their representation. Their local branches receive funding under similar arrangements from regional budgets.

The law is not perfect. It is vulnerable to abuse, or, in the case of the transparency and reporting requirements, sometimes the law is largely ignored. But that is not the greatest challenge for Indonesia’s political parties.

Their biggest problem is how to raise money to finance a huge operation without violating or skirting laws that essentially limit their choices. Anyone entrusted with the treasury job, as Nazaruddin was, has to grapple with this issue every day.

This problem is not unique to Indonesia. Faced with dwindling membership, contributions and caps imposed on corporate and individual donations, political parties in many European countries and Australia have increasingly turned to public funding to finance their operations.

Many countries rightly resist pressures to raise the caps on individual and corporate donations for fears that this would confer too much political leverage for big donors.

The series of corruption scandals that have hit major parties and now the Democrats, who won widespread support and victory in 2009 based on an anti-corruption platform, suggests that everyone is struggling with limited financial resources.

The contribution from the government budget is largely a token sum and barely covers the cost of running a secretariat.

Individual and corporate donations are also limited. Most outside donations go to election campaign finances, which are governed under a different set of rules.

However, parties also need to finance activities between the elections — and they most likely come short.